- (1.) THIS revision petition by Shri Jodh Singh is directed against the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Udaipur dated 15. 12. 60 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 6. 1. 62 under sec. 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
(2.) FACTS are that Shri Punam Chand and others petitioner-respondents filed an application under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur for payment of compensation of some 57 mango trees situated on the holding of the petitioners Khudkasht land. The respondents claimed that these mango trees were mortgaged to them by the petitioner by the mortgaged deed in the year 1945 and then by a second mortgage in 1951. Thereafter they were sold to the respondents by a sale deed dated 2. 1. 57 for Rs. 4,400/- which included the repayment of the previous mortgage amount. The petitioner denied the execution of the document and pleaded alternatively that as the sale was made long after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the provisions of sec. 82 were attracted and the sale was invalid. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur awarded Rs. 4,400/-compensation to the respondent in these mango trees and the Revenue Appellate Authority confirmed this decision. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in the first instance the finding of the Court that the mango trees were sold to the respondent was wrong and in the alternative he pleaded that as the sale was made after the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, on 2. 1. 57 the provision of sec. 82 was attracted and the sale of the mango trees was thus void and contravened the provisions of sec. 82. The remedy of the respondents, if any, lay in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount, if paid to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent conceded that the sale of the mango trees was made after the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force but pleaded that in view of the fact that the mango trees were the property under sec. 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of the respondents by way of mortgage, he had a valid right to compensation under the above section. We have considered the arguments and examined the record. In view of the admitted facts that the sale was made on 2. 1. 57 after the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the transfer of interest in the mango trees attaching to the holding of the petitioner was clearly void because the above section prohibits transfer of any interest in trees independent of the holding except by way of the produce of such trees for a period not exceeding one year at a time. In this case the respondents' claim for proprietary rights over the mango trees by this prohibited transfer cannot make them as persons holding the mango trees as their property within the meaning of sec. 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. At the same time the interest of the respondents in the mango trees standing on the holding of the petitioner was that of a mortgagee and proviso to sec. 80 permits payment of compensation to those persons only where the trees are their property. It is a settled law that a mortgagee cannot be considered to be the owner of the mortgaged property. Their interest was only that of mortgagees which was subject to the equity of redemption of the petitioner. The two subordinate courts therefore in awarding compensation to the respondents on the ground that they were the owners as mortgagee of the mango tree was clearly against the provision of sec. 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore clearly illegal and wrong. We, therefore, accept the revision petition of the petitioner, set aside the order of both the subordinate courts and hold that the respondents are not entitled to any payment of compensation. .;